I've seen worse. But it's not good, and it doesn't remotely resemble the source material. It's a PG-13 comfortably dumb movie and it suffers from its shackles. Carnage is hammy and goofy rather than sadistic and maniacal. Not recommended.
Watch Spectre before watching this, even if you've already seen it.
This will prevent you from scratching your head in confusion for the first half of the movie. It's been 6 years, I completely forgot about the events and characters in Spectre and they are pretty much required knowledge unless you don't care about the details of who is who and what is what at all.
Having said that, No Time to Die was an okay bond movie. It has some of the classic, humorous, near impossible, bond moments from the old bond movies while also having the more serious, emotional, sometimes frustrating, moments we expect to see in the modern ones.
It’s funny to know that this movie was intended to come out before the pandemic, because by releasing it now it might provide some unintentional food for thought for the morons who believe that a certain virus was actually conceived in a lab.
I genuinely wonder if those people will read that far into this film, I’d find it deeply amusing.
The good news is that there are definetely a lot of things this does better than Spectre.
The action is memorable and way more visceral (though it doesn’t quite surpass the Mission Impossible Fallout bar) and the characters are generally more interesting.
I loved the women in this in particular, they all have distinct personalities and they’re not flawless human beings or overpowered (e.g. Ana de Armas is bubbly and fun, but at the same time she’s inexperienced and chaotic), like some blockbusters tend to do.
At the same time, we shouldn’t pretend that this film invented strong female characters for Bond, especially after we’ve had Eva Green and Judi Dench.
Meanwhile, James Bond himself has a very satisfying arc in this film, which isn’t too dissimilar to Tony Stark’s arc in Avengers Endgame , with a bold pay off in the third act. I’m happy that this film gave us confirmation that Mads Mikkelsen didn’t end up castrating Bond during that scene in Casino Royale.
It’s paced very well, more like a traditional action film and less like a drama, which was the case for Skyfall and Spectre. Don’t let the runtime intimidate you, it doesn’t feel longer than 2 hours.
And finally, the whole thing just looks great, it’s produced excuisetely. The cinematography isn’t quite Skyfall level, but Roger Deakins is an impossible bar to clear for any cinematographer.
Unfortunately, this film really struggles with its tone, bouncing between some cartoony stuff and very dark, dramatic moments.
It wants to honor the traditional Bond stuff, but at the same time it can’t let go of the roots of the Daniel Craig iteration, which makes it feel like an uneven artistic vision, because the foundation of Craig’s Bond rests on this idea that this isn’t the traditional Bond.
It’s going for the same tone as Skyfall, meaning its pretty serious, while also incorporating some campy stuff with the plot and the villain (but never going into straight up silly territory, like Spectre).
The problem is that you could still take the villain and the plot seriously in Skyfall (Bardem is still scary despite the camp, the hacking plot feels grounded), and that isn’t the case here, the plot goes too much into sci-fi territory for that.
Also, Rami Malek didn’t leave much of an impression on me, the accent is wonky and he feels like a stock villain (very much like Waltz in the last film). There’s not really an interesting motivation there, or an interesting evil plan. It’s a campy and theatrical plan, and it feels very familiar.
Finally, this film can be fairly predictable at times (for example: Matilde being Bond’s daughter was extremely obvious, but they still try to somewhat play it as a twist. The same goes for Lea Seydoux being framed in prologue.).
So, it’s good, it pushes the creative boundaries of what a Bond movie is in some ways, which is the best stuff.
But I kinda hope they bring in someone with a fresh, fully realized artistic vision to really shake things up again for the next reboot.
7/10
Ps for the Bond producers: please, please make a spin off with Ana de Armas’ character.
You know a movie is bad when you end up sleeping in it, I've never seen an action movie that was this boring or maybe I have but I just forgot. Henry Golding sweetie, I'm so sorry but you can do better. The camera was very shaky during the fighting sequences which was very distracting. He literally got his name from a villain that killed his father, like that's where his iconic name came from? Tragic, I can write a better backstory than this mess. Also in the battle, why the hell was the villain just standing still when the entire group of heroes were in front of him, must have been blinded by the power of family.
Story = 5
Cinematography = 5
Soundtrack = 5
Production Design = 6
Acting = 5
Overall score = 5/10
Oh you best believe I will hold this movie accountable by today’s standard. This is crass, insulting, vile, a testosterone wet dream, as well as (what I assume to be more then one) full of homophobic slurs. I got five minutes in before I wretched and turned it off. Fuck establishment or character I’m just going straight to Alien v Predator which is what I actually wanted to watch in the first place.
To be honest I enjoyed the film. While it's nothing like the original Space Jam that's to be expected with 20+ years between the original and this sequel. However this film does have a few issues that really bug me, from the awful tech jargon used in the movie from the son to the poor acting and straight up dislike of LeBron. LeBron comes across as an awful father who forces his own ideals and opinions onto his children than letting them being individuals and that Basketball isn't fun and is solely just work. Also despite all the cool television and movie references throughout (felt very much like Ready Player One) it did feel a bit over the top at points and felt more like a big advert for WB content.
The title seems to have a double meaning. Not only for the 'monster' of the film, but it is also one of those movies that gets under your skin. I can't stop thinking about it.
The film has very unique feel to it, an 80's vibe, a creepy unique premise and a constant feeling of unease, I can now see why this has been getting so much press throughout the horror scene.
A Must Watch!
Firstly...
An army of über sexy Milla ninjas?
Probably one of the greatest moments in movie history.
The fourth installment in the series brings the comeback of Paul W. S. Anderson, and that is a good thing in my book. There's something about his way of creating suspense I really like.
Both the story and acting are actually quite decent, and the action is still of the "gritty:" and "real" kind. As far as a zombie apocalypse movie can be any sort of real of course.
I really like this one! Especially since it doesn't try to be grand or epic. Just plain old gritty action.
...and yes...the dogs are even creepier.
At least we know all the sponsors ;)
Having fought for this film since 2017, organising and running the majority of major events in that time, I was afforded the great honour and privilege of getting an early access pass for this film.
What can I say about "The Snyder Cut"? Overall I thoroughly enjoyed it. While it does not reach the heights of it's predecessors BvS and MoS on an emotional or philosophical level, it is a film packed with "oh my God moments" and action sequences that set the standard for all future action movies.
The film is a crowd pleaser. It will be the best received film in Zack Snyder's filmography by critics and the general audience. I do wonder if it will also be for Zack Snyder's fans.
In this movie the villains outshine the heroes by far. Steppenwolf is vicious and menacing, but it is Darkseid (or more accurately his presence) that dominates this movie. Everything is in service of him. With so many heroes it is a challenge giving them a chance to shine. Batman and Superman are particularly short changed, and there was a higher expectation regarding feeling the absence of Superman following the events of BvS. Others such as the Flash and Cyborg saw their roles vastly improved in this cut of the film.
As far as differences with the theatrical cut go, there are plenty. Purely by nature of being 4 hours vs the 1hr 50minute theatrical cut. There are also differences with respect to the nature of characters, specifically Wonder Woman. However, I must admit, a large number of edits to existing scenes by Joss Whedon in the theatrical cut served absolutely no purpose. The changes made being for no apparent reason to serve any narrative or plot in Whedon's story (eg the Cornfield scene and the discussion between Aquaman and Mera). Other edited scenes were wildly different, primarily the history lesson where the unified peoples of Earth held the forces of Apokolips at bay.
So after 3 years the question is "Was it all worth it?"
That this film exists at all is a victory for artistic freedom, and that it is so much better than the version from 2017 defacto means that it was worth it. But will this film hold a place in my heart beside Man of Steel and Batman v Superman? Time will tell. Zack Snyder films are famous for standing the test of time and improving with every viewing. I hope this one does too.
It's an imaginative and original coming-of-age drama that doesn't really live up to the fantasy it sells in the ad campaign. But once you move past that, you get a moving and tragic tale about a understandably neurotic young girl that users monsters as a coping mechanism to deflect the threats of the real world. Great cast, and an impressive performance from Madison Wolfe.
The deceptively marketed I Kill Giants has nothing in common with Harry Potter or the other recent YA movies that the trailer and poster try to evoke. Instead, it reflects on how a child deals with pain and with understanding that there are forces beyond his/her control.
At a reasonable running time and powered by a great performance by young Madison Wolfe, the movie flows quite nicely. It feels a bit heavy handed with the explaining of the methaphor behind its concept, the delivery of some pieces of exposition to the audience is a little clichéd and convenient, and the ending is a bit drawn out and again overexplanatory, but these may be necessary evils to get the point across to the younger viewers.
While I feel that a very similar topic was handled better and more maturely in J. A. Bayona's sensational A Monster Calls, I Kill Giants is still a constantly entertaining and at times moving watch.
There was not a single moment in this movie that made me care about what was happening or made me believe the characters could do any of that. By the way, the romance is incredibly silly and rushed. I read about a 100 pages before deciding to drop it. Oh boy, was I right.
I just don't understand how or why everyone at work was just laughing at and making fun of her? Like, what are you? 7? Seriously that would never happen at any serious workplace.
When coming up with the idea for this film, I imagine Nolan asking himself: can you take a Roger Moore era Bond plot, up the amount of sci-fi and dial down the camp? Yes, you can, but this isn’t exactly the way to do it.
Pros:
- I love it when directors aim big. Give me someone who tries something as ambitious as this over the average blockbuster anyday.
- Directing & cinematography, as is to be expected from a Nolan film at this point.
- Score. Especially during the opening scene and inversion stuff.
- Action sequences, especially the car chase.
- Most of the acting is solid. JDW is excellent, Robert Pattinson and Elizabeth Debicki are great.
Cons:
- This film has been edited to shit. It’s got pacing that’s all over the place, and there’s a rushed sense to it all. Scenes aren’t allowed to breathe, exposition is delivered so rapidly that you barely have any time to process it. I’m lucky to have a brain that can keep up with difficult plot mechanics, and yes, I could follow what was happening all the way through, but it all makes for a film that’s inaccessible for most people on their first watch. Unfortunately, it definitely doesn’t feel like the film that mainstream audiences are going to embrace during the time of a pandemic.
- Just like with Dunkirk, Nolan once again deliberately chooses to not flesh out his characters, resulting in a film that feels emotionally shallow. It’s very hard to connect with the film on a personal level in that regard. Take Inception, for example. Even when you strip away all the amazing stuff from that film (rotating cities, hotel fight), there’s still an emotional core about a man who’s been estranged from his kids because of what happened to his wife. There’s a reason why we want Leonardo DiCaprio to succeed at implanting this idea into Cillian Murphy’s head. Tenet has none of that. Who’s the protagonist? Who’s Robert Pattinson? What’s this agency they’re working for? We just don’t know.
- The sound mix. The dialogue just isn’t very clear for a lot of the film. Why they didn’t use ADR for some scenes (especially when people wear masks, as that’s easy to edit around) is beyond me. I honestly started to read the subtitles after the opening scene.
- Kenneth Branagh. He’s a great actor, but his hammy performance feels like it comes out of a different movie (a campy Roger Moore era Bond movie, that is)
- I found the climax to be uninspired, and a little dull.
- Minor point, but there’s some really unsubtle foreshadowing during the fight at the airport ( when you have a character unmask an inverted person offscreen, and they look surprised, who do you think it’s going to be? )
Overall, I feel like this could’ve easily been an 8 if the film was about 30 minutes longer, thereby taking its time to flesh out the characters, world and mechanics of the plot. It almost feels like WB forced Nolan to trim a lot of scenes in order to get a shorter runtime, but that’s also doubtful as WB isn’t beyond releasing movies that are way shittier at 3 hours (It: Chapter 2). Besides, he’s Christopher Nolan, so I assume he has final cut. As it stands, I just cannot recommend it.
5/10
I went into the theatre not knowing what this movie was about but knowing Cate Blanchett would do a good job either way & that turned out to be very true. I found Cate's character to be relatable in several ways and she did a great job portraying the many emotions of Bernadette. I thought the movie would spend more time showing Bernadette's journey in Antarctica but I loved it nonethless and some great cinematography here. Emma Nelson as Bree Branch should be commended here as her character was a joy to watch as was her bond with her mother - and it didn't feel forced. The only real flaw this movie had was those shoddy photoshops showing Bernadette's early life - really?! Should have asked Cate's fandom on twitter, they'd have provided hundreds for fun.
oh the cruel realisation that you're getting too old for these types of movies
I really hated this movie, the characters were poorly constructed, especially the male characters. All of them manipulate Elle throughout the whole movie, telling her what to do and pushing her around when it suit them.
The worst part for me though was how lightly they treated Noah’s violent side. Lee wondering if he had hit Elle was incredibly painful to watch, and when he slams the car to make her come inside she really does seem frightened. He is a violent character that doesn’t change at all, just says a few nice words at the end to “make up for everything”. Lee gets some sort of redemption by helping Elle, but Noah doesn’t, and I don’t think that’s the message we want kids to get from movies like this one, that your boyfriend loves you because he gets into fights “for you” or that he manipulating you and other people around you is something sweet and a proof of how much he cares about you. That’s wrong, and this movie take on that is completely horrible and misleading.
An absolute let-down after Skyfall. The plot didn't make a lick of sense, and the romance was ridiculous.
How is this movie getting such glorified reviews??? While the action scenes are fine, the story is somewhere between illogical and ridiculous.
None of the story lines make any sense, it's just one fight/chase after the next up until the idiotic finale. And yeah, let's connect the laptop of our villain super-hacker to the local network, what could go wrong.
Did the father have wives of 3 different asian nations, or was it just crappy casting?
I love the message it carries, but the story had quite a few flaws and was a little bit ridiculous and cringe. Had quite high expectations and was really excited and was just slightly let down. But I still loved it and do think it spreads a really important message and showcases how it's all more in the attitude of the person then the actual looks. And also how too much attitude is as bad as no attitude.
Really pleased with the movie! Well done!
Enjoyed it, but didn't like them replacing everyone from the first & killing off Duke right away. Also could've done better, nothing like the first one. Weak on story & The action.
A slow and painful movie that starts off impressive, but the novelty soon wears off. The cast is good and the special effects are very immersive, however the whole movie is just a series of random scenes with a very loose connection. With Interstellar we got an epic space adventure, the martian gave us a bit of humour and hope for survival. I honestly don't even know what the subtext for this story is about. What I can tell you is this: Brad Pitt is an astronaut. He goes to space to discover something ridiculously obvious. Some bad things happen for absolutely no reason with no explanation and no follow up. The film ends. Wouldn't recommend even if it lands on a streaming site.
I feel like I don't want to be too harsh on this film but I have to be sadly....
Boring. Slow. Uninvested. Unoriginal.
A very slow and predictable plot. Uninspiring turn from Tommy Lee Jones, who phones in his performance with all the class of a 1980s Motorola cell phone! I couldn't have cared less about whether this father/son relationship had any development. Why? Because Brad Pitt's character is also boring. He's a machine - we get that spelled out to us several times.
Now... Brad Pitt acts well. The visuals are good - but in a world of Interstellar and Gravity, they're underwhelming.
I liked the view of Moon travel. That's the only positive.
For a 2 hour film though, it felt like 3. That's a bad sign for any film. I'll be avoiding this one when I see it advertised on TV.
I'm settling on 5/10 because of Brad Pitt's performance and some of the visuals (particularly the Moon). But I could have gone as low as 3/10 or 4/10 based on my mood leaving the cinema!
Since this is coming up I thought I'd leave a comment about this. To be honest I wasn't sure where to place this rating wise but I generally enjoyed this - despite it's millennial VS boomer theme not really working out so well (which I didn't know about having only read the title and seen some stills). It's not a scary movie by any means even if they like to juxtapose the genre elements in the cuts; the primary angle is the comedy which is also why it can get away with being so messy imho.
I REALLY don't get why most people didn't like it. In my opinion it really worked quite neatly
not a bad movie, but it's like the new fast and furious movies, you have to turn off your brain to enjoy fully.
80 plays, huh? I wasn't aware this movie had already been released.
They are all the ingredients to make it a classic comedy, but it just doesn't take.
The casting is amazing, that's for sure. It's full of cool ideas and nice jokes all along the way.
- the daylight time being weird
- Most of Tilda Swinton character
- The make up for the dead
- The zombies looking for chardonnay and wifi instead of brains
- Driver's character direct assumption that it's zombies
- The "Is it a wild beast ? Several wild beasts ?" bit
- Zombie Iggy Pop
- the wtf exit of Tilda Swinton
- Murray and Driver discussing the theme song or the script
- etc.
And for all this I can't count it as bad. But it just doesn't fit into a story. Between this bits it all seems long and boring. And most of them are not even exploited correctly. A 20 minutes version of it would have worked a lot better.
The daylight times being weird ? Nice, but what about it ? Nothing.
Murray and Driver talk as themselves instead of the characters could have been interesting, but it's not even correctly used. When asked how he knows it end badly, Driver answers he read the script and Murray says he only had his scenes. Well, he IS in the litteral last scene of the film, the one that ends badly... So he should have known too. It just feels like it's been added there to add a few lines and that's it, it's not been though through.
Swinton's character is good with a sword. But it's 5 scenes of her decapitating zombies behing her back. OK. Show me her fighting 50 zombies, give me something new not 5 copies of the same scene!
As for the chatacters, Bill Murray has been playing various versions of the same character since what ? Lost in Translation ? And I usually love it. It kinda works here too. But not enough.
Adam Driver is actually quite ok. So I'm starting to think it's not his fault and Kylo Ren was just an horrible miscast.
Tilda Swinton is creepy af, just as usual, and has the best character. The way she speaks, the way she walks, her makeup for the deads, her sword skills, etc. Every scene where she's in is good.
Nice to see Steve Buscemi and Danny Glover, but again, they're like the usual cinematic version of themselves here. They feel more like cameos.
And then several characters seem to have been added just as fillers. The kids in detention center ? They do nothing, do not interact with anybody, or with zombies. They just go through it. You can totally erase them and lose nothing. The Selena Gomez crew ? Same thing. Well, you lose some scenes of various guys drooling over Gomez's small shorts and yes, the great head chopping scene, ok, but it could have been done with any other character. Hermit Bob is observing as an outsider. Doesn't bring anything to the story. And Chloe Sevigny's character is just painful to watch.
I get the concept, I loved some slow movies and watching some characters that are on the side and do not bring anything to the story. But here nothing ever works. It's almost heartbreaking to see the movie try so hard, imagine what it was supposed to be and see it fail so hard.
